ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Nim, Ocaml, and more
1–10 of 120 posts
Re: ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Nim, Ocaml, and more
#2Which version of OCaml? The ARMv7 backend was rewritten about 2 years ago, and merged in 4.00.
http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=5433
The new backend is supposed to be considerably faster on floating point code. This code looks integer only, and I don't have relative performance of old/new backend for integer code.
As a wider question: Who cares much about ARMv7? ARMv8 is a completely different beast, requiring a different backend, with much better raw performance (on the same terms as x86-64). That's where languages should be concentrating their current efforts.
Re: ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Nim, Ocaml, and more
#3This is some quality work. The Java results are particularly striking! It would be interesting to see some more languages that have more than one implementation compared.
What is the difference between FSharp and F#?
Re: ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Nim, Ocaml, and more
#4It seems kinda unfair to compare 32bit ARMv7 against 64bit x86-64. Wouldn't it be much fairer to compare ARMv7 against the register-starved x86, or to compare AArch64 against x86-64?
Re: ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Nim, Ocaml, and more
#5The LuaJIT results don't surprise me. I've always been impressed with LuaJIT. The OpenJDK results also don't surprise me. If you work in a Java shop, you learn very quickly to throw out OpenJDK in favor of Sun/Oracle Java. OpenJDK is indeed a "steaming pile of crap".
However, I would have liked to see Julia and Javascript benchmarks in those results. I've heard great things about Julia, and knowing just how incredibly far we've brought the Javascript VMs over the past decade, it wouldn't surprise me to see Javascript fairly high on the list.
Re: ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Nim, Ocaml, and more
#6Which version of OCaml? The ARMv7 backend was rewritten about 2 years ago, and merged in 4.00. http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=5433 The new backend is supposed to be considerably faster on floating point code. This code looks integer only, and I don't have relative performance of old/new backend for integer code. As a wider question: Who cares much about ARMv7? ARMv8 is a completely different beast, requiring…
Except it's really hard to benchmark on ARMv8 since non-Apple hardware is expensive.
Re: ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Nim, Ocaml, and more
#7The Racket and Lisp comments are a bit odd. To the best of my knowledge Typed Racket does support gradual typing, and as well, comparing it's compatibility to Scheme is a category error: Racket is not Scheme anymore, that's why it's called Racket now and not PLT Scheme.
Re: ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Nim, Ocaml, and more
#8The LuaJIT results don't surprise me. I've always been impressed with LuaJIT. The OpenJDK results also don't surprise me. If you work in a Java shop, you learn very quickly to throw out OpenJDK in favor of Sun/Oracle Java. OpenJDK is indeed a "steaming pile of crap". However, I would have liked to see Julia and Javascript benchmarks in those results. I've heard great things about Julia, and knowing just how incredibl…
>OpenJDK is indeed a "steaming pile of crap"
Just to clarify, it performed as well as the Oracle JVM on x86. Its poor performance on ARM is just due to its lack of JIT compilation.
>However, I would have liked to see Julia and Javascript benchmarks in those results.
I'm happy to include Javascript or Julia implementations if someone supplies them. I wasn't comfortable with Julia enough to write one myself.
Re: ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Nim, Ocaml, and more
#9The LuaJIT results don't surprise me. I've always been impressed with LuaJIT. The OpenJDK results also don't surprise me. If you work in a Java shop, you learn very quickly to throw out OpenJDK in favor of Sun/Oracle Java. OpenJDK is indeed a "steaming pile of crap". However, I would have liked to see Julia and Javascript benchmarks in those results. I've heard great things about Julia, and knowing just how incredibl…
It seems to me though, that the Java numbers aren't representative. As far as I know, JVM benchmarks should allow HotSpot etc to optimise the functions by calling them ~1k times before the actual benchmark happens. That doesn't seem to be the case in the code.
Re: ARMv7 vs. x86-64: Pathfinding benchmark of C++, D, Go, Nim, Ocaml, and more
#10The Racket and Lisp comments are a bit odd. To the best of my knowledge Typed Racket does support gradual typing, and as well, comparing it's compatibility to Scheme is a category error: Racket is not Scheme anymore, that's why it's called Racket now and not PLT Scheme.
>To the best of my knowledge Typed Racket does support gradual typing
If you take a Racket program and change the language to Typed Racket, you'll get flooded with compiler errors. Or at least that's been my experience.
>Racket is not Scheme anymore
I'll update the post to note this, thanks.